For the first time in the 148-year history of Oregon, the opportunity to create a Rainy Day fund was before the House of Representatives. Present were 31 Democrats and 26 Republicans. Three Republicans were excused.

HB 2707A would have established the Oregon Rainy Day Fund within the General Fund and received its initial revenue from a suspension of the 2005-07 corporate kicker. The kicker revenue would have been available when the projections for revenue from corporate and excise taxes are exceeded by two percent. After the suspension for the current biennia, an amount equal to one percent of the ending balance would have gone into the fund, and the corporate kicker would have continued to be credited to businesses. The House Revenue Committee discussed the measure at length and voted it out of committee accompanied by a minority report.

However, the floor arguments were disheartening, to understate the House debate on the bill February 27. Opponents were adamant that the Rainy Day account would not receive ongoing interest as it accumulated revenue while the proponents answered that no current special fund keeps its interest and that a bill would be introduced, with the cooperation of the State Treasurer, to provide for interest to the Rainy Day Fund as well as to others such as the Education Stability Fund. Supporters urged the body to pass the suspension rather than waiting for the Senate version which calls for a vote of citizens to redirect the kicker. Those in opposition argued that while some businesses supported giving up the kicker, others would be hurt by not receiving that credit. In the end, purely on party lines, HB 2707A failed because the 31 to 26 vote did not meet the 3/5 majority requirement.

Wednesday's deal gave most Democrats and Republicans most of what they wanted. The plan would put $250 million in corporate kicker tax rebates from large corporations into a new state savings account, while small corporations would still get their kicker rebate. Next, it would raise the corporate minimum tax and direct $75 million a year toward public services, although it would not go specifically toward college financial aid and Head Start, as the Governor had requested. Lastly, state inheritance tax exemptions would apply to estates under $2 million instead of $1 million. While not perfect, this compromise shows that legislators are finally getting the message and willing to put the best interests of the state first.

However, some Democrats have been targeted with "hate mail" because of the way they voted on this bill on Tuesday. More compromise and negotiation will be needed on many more of this session's bills. Let's hope the recent targeting doesn't sour this positive start.

Kappy Eaton, Governance Coordinator

5 MINUTE ACTIVIST

Stop Measure 37!

LWVOR has requested the Legislature immediately suspend Measure 37 to allow consideration of new legislation which would "fix" the many troubling aspects of M37.Since our previous action alert on this issue 3 weeks ago, no progress has been made. We asked them to use the principles of clarity, consistency and continuity in their deliberations. And we asked that they not take over the Big Look's work to broadly engage Oregonians in developing a 21st century statewide land use planning program for Oregon.

You can help: Contact your senators and representatives with the League's message: Without urgent action, the state and our local governments might be liable for millions of dollars in claims and legal fees. If you have time, attend every M37 event within your reach, including hearings of the Joint Special Committee on Land Use Fairness (contact the committee administrator Patrick.H.Brennan@state.or.us for more info).

To find more information on Measure 37 claims, check out the state's website: www.oregon.gov/LCD/MEASURE37/index.shtml

Why Citizen Access Is Important

During a lunch break at the Capitol last week I visited with a woman who was just starting the process of getting a bill passed. She was telling me all about what she had done so far and what was still left.

Based on her own experience, her goal was to change the rules so that the public would have better access to complaints filed against doctors. She had inquired about complaints against her physician prior to surgery and was given a positive, complaint-free report by a state agency. After her surgery was botched, she later found out her bad experience with this doctor was not the first. She also discovered that if there is a lawsuit settlement and no other court action, then there is no public record of the complaint or court action. She was determined to change the law.

She first needed a sponsor and asked a good friend who was running for the Legislature to help her. Unfortunately, his candidacy was unsuccessful, and she had to find a new sponsor. Finally she was able to get her bill introduced, and the day I met her she was trying to find additional sponsors. She was learning that it's not easy to change statutes, even if it's a good idea, and as a one-person lobby against the establishment, it was going to be an uphill battle.

As I was going home later that day, I again saw her talking to yet another legislator in the hall. I was reminded once again why the League works to keep the doors open: so that individuals like her can make a difference.

Paula Krane, Citizen Access Coordinator

How to Pay For New Schools

The League, because we believe coordination among governments (including school districts) makes for good governance and, because we believe that school facilities are important to communities who should have a choice of options to pay for new schools, has supported SB 336 and HB 2525. These are just two of a number of bills to be considered this session on ways to assure school facilities are considered during land use actions and how to pay for them. House Majority Leader Dave Hunt of Clackamas County and Bend area State Rep. Chuck Burley have convened a work group to develop a package of bills for the full Legislature to consider.

SB 336 allows local governments, when considering land use actions, to consider school capacity when making their land use decision. HB 2525 would add "schools and classrooms providing education for kindergarten through grade 12" to the list of public capital improvements which are eligible to assess a systems development charge (SDC) in order to help pay for the facility. Currently, local governments can assess SDCs for water, waste water, storm drains, roads and parks. Schools are specifically excluded.

Besides new schools, many districts need help with maintenance of older schools. That issue is also being considered. Oregon is one of few states that does not use state funds for capital improvements to K-12 schools.

If this issue is of interest to you, contact Sen. Kurt Schrader or Reps. Tomei, Bonamici, Buckley, Cannon, Dingfelder, Galizio, Gelser, Greenlick, Nolan, Shields, Witt or your local representative or senator.

Peggy Lynch, Action Committee Member

SB 544
(A Bill Belittling Science, Law, and the Public)
Is Opposed by LWVOR

First public hearing - SB 544
1:00 Monday, March 5^th
Room 343 at the Capitol

SB 544 would amend the state's Removal/Fill Law, which gives parameters for either removing from or adding material to the waters of the state. The proposed amendments would allow applicants who have been denied a permit the right to choose arbitration rather than appealing to the Court of Appeals.

State policy is clear that unregulated removing from the beds and banks and unregulated filling of waters of the state are prohibited, and the Director of the Department of State Lands will implement this policy. The policy further states that the "protection, conservation and best use of the water resources of this state are matters of the utmost public concern."

Arbitration can be a very useful tool in dispute resolution - but the one thing it is not is a public process. The proposed amendment would allow three arbitrators: one chosen by the applicant, one by the Department of State Lands, and one jointly agreed to. These three may affirm the director's order or set it aside and approve the applicant's application for a permit.

Not all, but many permit applications are for removal or fill of wetlands (yes, they are waters of the state). A very contentious issue is exactly what are the boundaries of a wetland. This decision, made by qualified wetland consultants, is called a wetland delineation and is based on scientific findings as to soil, vegetation and hydrology based on a federal (adopted by the state) manual. Occasionally there is disagreement as to the specifics. DSL has staff, including a wetland scientist, a hydrologist and soils specialists to help make these determinations.

If two of the three arbitrators rule that the director's decision to deny the permit was in error, without a contested case hearing, without a court ruling, the permit would be issued.

The state's role of stewardship of the waters of this state would be overruled by the discretionary procedure called arbitration. Agency rules and statutes governing the agency could be overruled without any public consideration.

As Brena Lopez, our new Legislative Coordinator so clearly said in a memo to the Action Committee, "reject the changes in the law suggested by SB 544 and continue to allow the courts - and, by extension, the public - to weigh in on these important decisions."

PLEASE ADD YOUR VOICE TO PROTECT THE WATER RESOURCES OF THIS STATE.

Liz Frenkel, Natural Resources Coordinator